Re: A Critique on Objective Morality
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:10 pm
Yup. That's about right. By the way, I meant to say that I'm not saying that there cannot be and/or is no such thing as universal morality. It was arrived at via observation, common sense, and deduction...Immanuel Can wrote:This is an interesting claim. "All codes of conduct are relative/subject to historical, cultural and/or familial particulars."creativesoul wrote:I'm not saying that all sets of morals are equally good. I'm not saying that there can be and/or is no such a thing as universal morality. I'm saying that it is universally true that all codes of conduct are relative/subject to historical, cultural, and/or familial particulars.
Firstly, if I may ask, how did you arrive at it?
Was it by an empirical investigation you did? Was it by some sort of logical deduction you could explain? Was it by way of the authority of an expert you trusted, or common axiom you heard repeated? Or are you making a claim of what you guess/hope/believe to be true, but without the support of such things?
Secondly, to me, it looks very much like a universal axiom itself. It seems to me that if it's not, then it would read, "Many codes of conduct are...etc." or perhaps, "This or that historical, cultural or familial perspective is that all codes of conduct...etc." But it looks very much like you intend it as a pure universal, since you start it with "all."
In that case, it might be a very short one, but it looks like a one-precept "code" of how one should conduct one's belief, and it looks like it is not anticipated to be "relative/subject to historical, cultural and/or familiar particulars."
Is that right?